DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 10, 2025 has been entered. Claims 9 and 10 have been cancelled. Claims 1 – 6 have been amended and no claims have been added. Claims 1 – 8 are pending.
The cancellation of claims 9 and 10 renders moot the rejection to those claims.
The amendment to claims are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “downstream” in claim 3 is indefinite. The claims are drawn to a nonwoven product after it has been produced. The term “downstream” is considered to be used with regards to processing order. However, the order things occur are not given weight in a product claim. Thus, it is unclear what structural features result from a step being “downstream”. Is one feature adjacent another feature? Does the feature repeat and alternate with a second feature? And if that feature repeats or alternates does the order or what started first impact the final structure? Applicant should describe the structural features produced by the order since the claimed product is a flat potentially endless strip of fabric. It is unclear what feature downstream imparts to the product. For purposes of examination, the longitudinally oriented loops are considered to be alternating with the laterally offset consolidation threads.
The phrase “downstream” in claim 4 is similarly rejected as claim 3. For purposes of examination, the tear-off region is considered to alternate with the oriented loop pillar stitching region.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 - 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopf et al. (EP 2128212 A2) in view of Callaway et al. (2006/0042325).
Kopf et al. is drawn to an adhesive material comprising a nonwoven carrier layer made from a nonwoven fabric and threads passing through the nonwoven (abstract). The carrier layer includes an adhesive coating made from natural or synthetic rubber, or a pressure sensitive adhesive (abstract). The nonwoven is stitched through using stitchbond machines such as Maliwatt machines (page 2, paragraph 4). The stitchbonded product has good transverse tearability (page 5, paragraph 5). The fabric has a low stitch count per width and a high stitch length to maintain flexibility (page 5, paragraph 9). The fabric and stitching threads are made from polyester, polypropylene, polyethylene, or polyamide materials (page 7, paragraphs 3 - 4). Additionally, layers of similar or different nonwovens can be joined together to modify the properties of the final product (page 7, paragraph 1).
While Kopf et al. teaches using a stitchbonded nonwoven as the carrier layer of a tearable nonwoven and that the stitch length and stitch spacing should still allow flexibility, Kopf et al. fails to teach specific stitch patterns for the reinforcing stitches. Callaway et al is drawn to a tape substrate made from knit backing that includes a series of chain stitches followed by a set of offset or staggered stitches, which switch to a different needle. As shown in Figure 2, the yarn produces two offset stitches and then stays on the in the same column for 5 pillar stitches before switching back to an offset stitch. Callaway teaches that using a combination of different stitches gives the material greater stability while maintaining teara3bility in the horizontal and vertical directions (paragraph 1). Thus, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the pattern disclosed by Callaway, having a combination of stitches, as the stitch pattern of the stitches in Kopf et al. to produce a material with greater stability while still maintaining tearability. The regions where the stitches are chain or pillar stitches correspond to the claimed areal regions and the regions comprising the offset stitches correspond to the claimed tear-off regions. Further, as shown in Figure 2 of Callaway et al. the stitch runs at about 45º from the longitudinally oriented pillar stitches. Thus, claims 1, 2, and 6 – 8 are rejected.
With regards to claims 3 and 4, stitches are produced an regular alternating manner such that at least one set of pillar stitches are formed after the offset stitches. Thus, claims 3 and 4 are rejected.
With regards to claim 5, Kopf et al. teaches that the stitch length can be high to maintain flexibility. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the stitch length of the pillar region from the offset regions to have different flexibility between the tear-off region and the areal region. Thus, claim 5 is rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the stitching in the prior art references utilize a jersey binding due to the zigzag structure and are only applicable to a limited extent to the claimed embodiments (response, page 11). Further, the applicant argues that the jersey weave is different from the fringed weave of the present embodiment and the jersey weave results in deteriorated tearability (response, page 11).
With regards to the applicant’s arguments, it is noted that the claims are interpreted as requiring a set of pillar stitches, which are the longitudinally oriented loops, alternating with a tear-off region that includes a lateral offset stitching. The stitching pattern shown in Figure 2 of Kopf shows multiple pillar (or straight) stitches, which alternate with section of offset stitches, i.e., stiches that shift over to the adjacent needle row. The applicant’s arguments with regards to fringed weave structure are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, since the term “fringe-weaved” has not been defined in the claims or in the application. Further, it seems that the term weave is being confused with knit. The stitch loops recited in the claim produce a knit structure not a woven structure. Thus, for purposes of addressing the arguments the term weave is interpreted as knit. Since the applicant does not expressly define the “fringed” pattern or reference the term in the claims or disclosure, this feature is not considered to be commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter and does not overcome the rejection.
The applicant further mentions “bonding threads” in the arguments (Response, page 13). However, the claims and disclosure do not use this terminology either. It is unclear if the bonding threads are supposed to be the longitudinally oriented consolidation threads or if the bonding threads or a different thread. Thus, the arguments with regards to the bonding threads are no persuasive because it is not clear what features the bonding threads represent and if those features are recited in the claims. Thus, the arguments are not sufficient to overcome the rejection.
Further, the applicant argues that the rejection over the combination of Kopf and Callaway is not proper because one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Callaway to modify Kopf. However, both references are drawn to stitchbonding structures. While Kopf discloses that the tape structure used in Kopf is a stitch bonded nonwoven, Kopf fails to teach much with regards to the stitchbonding patterns. Kopf is relied on to show the general knowledge of stitchbond patterns in the art. Thus, the two references are drawn to similar field of endeavor since they both related to stitchbonding and it is considered reasonable to look to Kopf for teaching on how the stitch pattern in the fabric can be modified. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
jlj
March 6, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789